Lets discuss: Homophobia
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
- Status
You don't see the non-religious bombing abortion clinics or flying planes into buildings.
Junius
Prince
Well we could all sit here and list crimes done by secular or atheist regimes in this past century as well, but that sort of thing wouldn't be very productive either.
Yeah, let's get back to spinning homophobia into homotolerance.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Dammit, El. I know what you said. I saw you say "Can you clearly express your argument as to why they're comparable?" in your last post. I was telling you why I asked you to clarify your analogy: because the first time you made it, I interpreted it in a way you might not have intended. That hasn't been hashed out time and time again, has it?
I have seen people called homophobic simply because they disliked a gay person, for other reasons. I have been called it a couple times, because I couldn't stand a certain homosexual classmate, because he was a prima donna and an ass.
Ah! That makes more sense.
No wonder! I meant "excision of instinctive disgust". Sorry.
restated: As to the utility of finding a putative cause of instinctive disgust for a moral teaching, we can deliberately look to see if the moral teaching survives excision of instinctive disgust. Homophobia, imo, doesn't. The other dumb moral teachings, which don't generate instinctive disgust, were easy to overcome and ignore. Instinctive disgust will help homophobic moral teachings alive, though.
And the Ammonite thing doesn't matter. It was supposed to be an example of racism disguised as moral teaching. American slavery justifications are a much better example of the concept anyway, and it's just an example of instinctive urges of disgust being re-written as moral teachings, to show that it can happen.
I understand your argument much better now, thanks. I don't think it works, though, because I have a much higher level of instinctive disgust for certain sexual acts which I do not have a moral disgust for (Although I think they're weird, and may be wrong) than I do for gay sex, which I think is wrong. I'm not sure I could have instinctive disgust for gay sex excised even more than it is and still be a straight male, or at least who I am -- I don't enjoy seeing certain things, but I don't need brain bleach afterward, and it's hardly overwhelming.
Oh, ok. I understand now. But I still think it'd be best if you'd clarify what exactly your line of thought is on why they're comparable. I've heard multiple ways of comparing the two, with varying avenues of attack, and if I'm thinking of a different way than you are, then clarification won't do much good -- my response, even perfectly clarified, won't address what you're actually trying to say.
But, in short, my argument is this: we think of attraction based on race (And non attraction based on race) differently in many ways from attraction based on gender (And non attraction based on gender). In fact, I think they're far more dissimilar than similar, as gender and biological sex are much more fundamental distinctions. Thus, I don't think it's apt to compare between racism and homophobia. (In my view, it's like comparing racism and hating goth kids -- perhaps similar in some ways, but fundamentally different, so they can't be compared in a really constructive manner.)
Was I any clearer that time?
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Except that atheism had nothing to do with their crimes. I can find a logical pathway from religiosity to homophobia much easier than atheism to genocide etc.
Junius
Prince
I'll agree that you can find a pathway from religion to homophobia. You could also find one from religion to tolerance. It isn't atheism itself that did anything. It is not a statement of beliefs nor is the concept in any way monolithic. My point was simply that posting bad things religious folk have done throughout history is pointless and not constructive. Funny that you use the word logic too since many of the despots i was referring too would claim what they were doing was logical. Notions of trying to build the perfect society through reason unaccompanied by compassion can be very destructive. Would listing those horrible people and their crimes add anything to this discussion? Of course not. Neither would bringing up islamic terrorism or murder of abortionists.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
Out of curiosity, how do you define that which is "right," and what is "wrong?"
Sex is widely considered to be fun and, scientifically speaking, it promotes emotional bonding. As a utilitarian, if anything I would say that that is morally good. Or at the least, it is morally good to create an environment where people are free to engage in such happiness-producing activities. I don't understand what wrongness there could be to it.
Some people like to create these scorecards, but I don't think they matter. Stalin or the Inquisition, it doesn't matter. We don't have to count or distinguish, because each side can just say "regardless of their beliefs, they were wrong" and be done with it.
The only time the argument holds is if you begin to justify the beliefs of the evil-doer. But (with atheists at least) there's no need. The puritan witch burners were in moral error. Hitler was in moral error. Dust-my-hands, done.
elrohir said:
Well, yes, if you've not been taught that something is wrong, then there's no reason why your instinctive disgust for something will cause you to think of it as 'wrong' once you analyse it. Cannibalism is a good example. The idea causes you to recoil, but if you imagine a 'cannibalise a corpse or die' scenario, you'd say "well, it might be acceptable".
My point is that the moral law was generated from an instinctive disgust, and that the disgust is what causes friction when people try to shuck it. There's nothing that can change that it's a taught moral law, because it's been lovingly propagated throughout society. The logic against it being a legitimate moral law can get stronger and stronger, but people will resist shucking it much harder than the other (illogical) moral laws are shucked.
As I point out in my rant about the misuse of the word 'sodomy', there're other anathema forbidden in the OT that're condemned in the NT but that people don't give a rat's tail about. Their moral intuitions create contortions that justify the shucking of those twice-confirmed moral laws (some contortions are exegesis, and imo, legitimate). Why? Because they don't trigger our instinctive disgust, they fail full moral logic, and they seem to be useless or harmful.
So, I'm not comparing between instinctive disgust supported by Scripture and not. I'm comparing between moral laws propagated by Scripture that generates disgust or not.
This religious person finds it offensive that he's expected to lap that up without a source, and demands a source for it as well. Especially as it's quite plainly ridiculous.
wcbarney
Know-it-all
Yeah, I guess you can say that I am disgusted when I see two homosexuals kissing in public. And they were talking about Jimmy's female anatomy and I don't think Jimmy's anatomy included that particular part. So, I guess you can say that I am innately disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, including Jimmy's female anatomy.
wcbarney
Know-it-all
wcbarney said:
For some reason, Hitti-Litti, I used to think that folks who posted on this sub-forum were fairly intelligent and well-educated. That bubble seems to be bursting, however. Can you please remind me where I allegedly posted "only anal sex results in risks to other people as well" which you apparently find to be a weird argument?
I can't understand why everything has to be spelled out, again and again. Why don't we adopt the popular clinical definition of "unsafe sex," --- exchange of bodily fluids. That would include anal sex, oral sex, and other things such as becoming blood brothers, or even French kissing, wouldn't it?
Moderator Action: Suggesting that a poster is unintelligent or uneducated constitutes a personal attack on that poster. Make sure your posts are civil and address the post, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
wcbarney
Know-it-all
wcbarney said:
Lucy, I don't understand why I have to justify a beef with homosexuality. I have stated plainly that I am disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, and especially by witnessing homosexual acts. Yes, I do know that not all homosexuals engage in "risky sex," that many heterosexuals do engage in "risky sex," and logically then, "risky sex" is in no way definitive of homosexuality. So, what's your point?
Carry on.
Hitti-Litti
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,767
burrrrrrrrrn
I thought that you used the risks of anal sex as a way to point out why it's wrong and immoral as people were discussing why anal sex would be immoral, but I might have misunderstood your post, in that case my bad.Can you please remind me where I allegedly posted "only anal sex results in risks to other people as well" which you apparently find to be a weird argument?
Lucy, I don't understand why I have to justify a beef with homosexuality. I have stated plainly that I am disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, and especially by witnessing homosexual acts. Yes, I do know that not all homosexuals engage in "risky sex," that many heterosexuals do engage in "risky sex," and logically then, "risky sex" is in no way definitive of homosexuality. So, what's your point?
Carry on.
Why are you disgusted by it? And what constitutes homosexual acts? Heterosexual acts done by homosexuals? There is nothing in that homosexuals can do that heterosexuals can't (for the most part. I don't want to get a ban
).And generally, if you want to make a group of people second class citizens, there ought to be a reason for it other than your delicate sensibilities.
It completely disgusts you to see two people of the same gender engaging in mutual shows of affection? I assume that watching a man and a woman tongue-wrestling in public would offend you as well then, because it certainly disgusts me.
- Status
Similar threads
